fetus with gill

[alextemplet]

The thing most people overlook is that the big bang was actually first proposed by the Catholic Church in order to prove the existence of God. The reasoning was that only God could've caused the entire universe to spring from nothing. I know that's off topic but when people try to say the big bang is contrary to belief in God I always like to bring that up to show that the opposite is true.

Getting back onto topic, the big bang has actually been very solidly proven by every conceivable test; it's actually believed to be the most solidly-proven theory in cosmology. I read an article in Astronomy magazine a few years ago that gave an excellent summary of the major lines of evidence proving the big bang; I'll have to go dig it out so I can use it as research for this discussion

[Melychath]

I cannot say whether the Big Bang is an accurate theory or not, for all I know it is. My debate is not over the manner in which creation came to be, but whether that creation was the result of a conscious effort, or a random appearance of something from nothing.

As far as the definition of any given "spot" in space-time goes, I don't see the relevance. Defined, or not, something either existed, or it didn't. Whether that something existed in a defined, or undefined form matters little. Either that something existed, or it didn't. You might say, "What is the definition of existence?" and again, I would say that it matters little how we define, or if were even capable of defining, any given something.

We exist today, the offspring of some specific chain of events. Events which had their beginnings in some other events, which had their beginnings in some other events, all the way down the line, until we get to the first event. There has to be, after all, a beginning. No matter what that beginning looks like, or how it is defined, there had to be a beginning.

Having said all that; my point was, the idea that the very beginning of all creation was the result of some undefined, inexplicable appearance of the very first something from nothing is ridiculous. How does nothing choose to create, establish, produce, form, birth, found, erect, etcetera, anything?

The idea that an intelligent being with more power than that which we possess, or can comprehend, seems reasonable in the face of the aforementioned.

M'Elychath

[alextemplet]

Please don't get me wrong; I agree with you that everything was created by God. Like you said it's not so much the manner by which that happened, but the fact that it did that should matter to the faithful. This is why theistic evolutionists can accept evolution for what it is while still believing in God.

That said, it has never been proven that the universe needed a beginning. It is possible that the universe might be in a continuous cycle that creates and destroys, an endless cycle of big bang/big crunch, and if this cycle is infinite, has been occurring forever and will continue forever, then there is no beginning. Granted, the big crunch is an idea not strongly supported by current evidence, but my point is that we still don't know for sure that a beginning indeed occurred.

[MrMistery]

@Melychath

You look at things from your point of view. Those things may not matter to you, but they do matter to some people who dedicated their life work to the study of cuantic physics.

As far as the definition of any given "spot" in space-time goes, I don't see the relevance. Defined, or not, something either existed, or it didn't. Whether that something existed in a defined, or undefined form matters little. Either that something existed, or it didn't. You might say, "What is the definition of existence?" and again, I would say that it matters little how we define, or if were even capable of defining, any given something.

Wrong from more than one point of view. try to view the universe as a mathematical function.
f : [0,infinity] -> {0,1}
0 is the time of the big bang. and the value of this function can by either 0(the spot does not exist) or 1(the item exists). what is f(-5)? is it 0? No it ain't, cause that value is not defined there, before the big bang. This is how we think it happened, and that is why you simply can not discuss what was or was not before the big bang.
And, even so, it is still wrong.

Not related to the big bang, a cuantum particle does not this 1 or 0 state, it keeps switching from existance to nonexistance. in a particular spot, a particle has a higher or a lower probability of existing or not. so, in reality, you can not say that something either exists or doesn't exist, because if you break it down to a subatomic level, everything in this universe is simultaniously existing and not existing

[Melychath]

I would be a fool to pretend that I had as good an understanding of the Big Bang as the two of you, MrMistery and alextemplet. Perhaps, I should have made my argument based less on what you have learned, and more on what I have come to understand. In fact, I likely should not have begun the discussion at all, though I am glad that I did, for I have been given many an interesting thing to ponder because of the two of you.

Initially, I simply intended to suggest that evolutionists live as much by faith as do those individuals who believe in God. I base this suggestion on my understanding that evolution is yet an unproven theory, with many a hole punched in its' hull.

MrMistery, I did not intend to suggest that how we define any given thing is unimportant. Definitions are important for us to better understand the world in which we live. Having read your most recent post, which briefly describes this theory of existance and non-existance cohabitating, I better understand your argument, though I am yet convinced that all things had some form of a beginning, other than God Most High, but have only an infantile explanation for this conviction and will not burden you with it. Again, I did not intend to spit in the face of your, or anyone elses, life's work.

M'Elychath

[Doc44]

How did we go from pharyngeal gill arches to big banging God.

CONCLUSION:

It was all created........by God based on the facts that it rained on Thursday after 3:00 CT and every third one was blue because ice cream has no bones.

Doc

WOW!

[kiekyon]

can u all take a look at this and tell me what do you think??

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c024.html

[MrMistery]

I am not going to read that and i am not going to reply to it. Just remember this: an evolutionist and a creationist will always find arguments against each other's ideas, and both think their idea is the truth. Therefore, none of them will ever convince the other one. Evolution is currently the front-runner cause it has more scientific proof, even if creationists will never admit it...

[Poison]

No creation discussion please. We have enough topis to discuss this.

@kiekyon:
What I think: A religious explanation. Nothing more.

[atypical10]

Yes at some point the fetus presents gills, it doesn't mean that we are fish.

[Linn]

can u all take a look at this and tell me what do you think??

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c024.html

Did read!
thanx

[mith]

@kiekyon
Well there you go.

From the christian site:

Once in a great while a child will be born with a "tail." But, is it really a tail? No, it's not even the coccyx. It doesn't have any bones in it; it doesn't have any nerve cord either. The nervous system starts stretched out open on the back. During development, it rises up in ridges and rolls shut. It starts to "zipper" shut in the middle first, then it zippers toward either end. Once in a while it doesn't go far enough, and that produces a serious defect called spina bifida. Sometimes it rolls a little too far. Then the baby will be born - not with a tail, but with a fatty tumor. It's just skin and a little fatty tissue, so the doctor can just cut it off. It's not at all like the tail of a cat that has muscle, bones, and nerve, so cutting it off is not complicated. (So far as I know, no one claims that proves we evolved from an animal with a fatty tumor at the end of its spine.)

Rebuttal from talk origins
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... criticisms

However, contrary to the claims of Gish, Menton, and ReMine, vertebrae are not a requirement for tails. M. sylvanus is a prime example of a primate whose fleshy tail lacks vertebrae (Hill 1974, p. 616; Hooten 1947, p. 23). Several cases are known where human tails have been inherited. Furthermore, we now know the genes responsible for the development of tails in mammals, and all humans have them. Inheritance of the tail structure per se is unnecessary since the developmental system has been inherited but is normally inactivated in humans. The "resemblance" to non-human tails is far from superficial, since all true human tails are complex structures composed of symmetrical layers of voluntary muscle, blood vessels, specialized nerves and sensing organs, and they can indeed move and contract.

For the skeptical reader, probably the best evidence that these structures are true tails is visual inspection. Photographic images of a newborn's atavistic tail can be found at the University of Iowa's Virtual Hospital site, complete with the voluntary contractory movement of the tail documented.

Fight ignorance.